Skip to comments.The Supreme Court and Faux-marriage Fallacies
Posted on 03/28/2013 4:31:48 AM PDT by Rashputin
The Supreme Court and Faux-marriage Fallacies By Selwyn Duke
The Supreme Court is behaving as a reluctant agent of social engineering and not an ardent guardian of constitutional integrity in its approach to the last two days of oral argument on marriage. Furthermore, the pro-marriage (conservative) contingent is likewise confused, making the case that striking down Prop. 8 would be the wrong kind of social engineering.
Thus have we heard arguments about the "sociological" impact of faux marriage and about awaiting "additional information from the jurisdictions where this experiment is still maturing." Justice Anthony Kennedy, who could be the swing vote in the case, weighed in on both sides of the social-engineering debate, saying, "There's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have 5 years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more." But he also claimed that California's "40,000 children with same-sex parents...want their parents to have full recognition and full status" and asked pro-marriage attorney Charles Cooper, "The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"
My answer? No, it isn't.
. complete article here .
Of course, winning the debate in the realm of reason won't hold sway with people awash in the effluent of emotion. But it doesn't help if conservatives conserve nothing but yesterday's liberals' victories, one of which is to convince us to speak of "gay marriage" and "traditional marriage," as if the former actually exists and the latter isn't a redundancy. So remember that this debate isn't about rights but definitions, and something that doesn't meet the definition of "marriage" doesn't exist as a marriage. And you cannot have a right to that which doesn't exist.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It is going to be a long three months until the decision where we will have millions of articles on something that NOBODY knows the result of. I liked the days when the Supreme Court heard arguments (which we did not see) and then not hear a thing about it until the decision. Not a thing that can be done now. I am sure that the anti-gay marriage folks gave a good outlook on why not to have gay marriage. Let’s just wait and see what happens.
Gays want “marriage” for one reason - Federal benefits. If benefits weren’t involved, they would care a bit...
A commonly stated viewpoint, but I disagree. Sure, the benefits are part of it — but the war against traditional marriage is a war against Christianity. They are not so much trying to get something (benefits) as trying to destroy something (Christian morality).
The Supreme Court was never meant to be a political body.
Today that is just what it is.
Bob, I completely disagree. This issue is not about benefits or money-—it is about acceptance-—FORCING normal Americans to accept deviant and perverted behavior. They don’t want tolerance, they want your BLESING.
As I've been trying to tell people for awhile now, if you truly value something, you don't want government involved in it in any way. Married people were more than happy to let Big Brother do them a solid with all kinds of other peoples' money and now they have the gall be shocked and outraged when they don't like the strings Big Brother wants to attach to it.
Lesson: You need to be careful whom you let do favors for you. You guys are probably going to have to learn that the hard way this time. Married people were quite happy to dance with the devil for all those benefits. But when you dance with the devil, you aren't going to change him...he's going to change you.
The bigger reason Gays want "marriage" is AFFIRMATION.
They know deep down what they are doing is morally wrong. However, if society passes a law affirming anything Gay, then their guilt might somehow be eased.
Sure. Except the only way that happens is to make someone else feel guilty...and that would be Christians.
Real, true followers of Christ will never affirm homosexuality.
Many Catholic based groups supported Obamacare and were allies with Obama in getting the bill passed. Then they find out about the contraceptive mandate. You lie down with dogs, you get fleas and they did.
True for the rank and file that propel the movement, but there’s a whole nother agenda behind the Leadership, the Architects of this movement and that is to destroy the Christian Church communities if at all possible. Its an anti-God movement; they want to marginalize the “Christian” community to the point that they are entirely eliminated from the “public square” to such an extent that to be branded a “Christian” would mean someone would be precluded from running for public office.
My analysis of the situation indicates that they’re well over 50% of the way to achieving their first goal, i.e. forcing legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Following that victory, they’ll use the education system to indoctrinate children with the idea that its normal and correct to investigate their sexuality with members of the same sex and at the middle and high school levels, those who aren’t practicing “bi-sexual” relationships will be automatically deemed “homophobic” which they’ll write up as a mental disease and giving rise to possible hate crimes.
Another “next” step will be to attempt to deny tax exempt status to Christian Churches that refuse to perform same-sex marriages. The only salvation for the churches ultimate existence will be that they’ll have to write in some exemption for the Mosques and Synagogues and I think that will come about by way of exempting all religious communities that perform sacremental rites only with, for and by “members” much like Obama’s exemption from Obamacare for the Amish. This would of course require “registration” of church members. We know where that ultimately ends.
Canadian Supreme Court Rules Biblical Speech Opposing Homosexual Behavior is a Hate Crime
Absolutely. It isn't about tolerance. It's about forcing any opposition into silence. If silence doesn't work, then punishment. There is a hot angry wind blowing against righteousness. The anger is what I always notice about this movement.
At this point, the Canadian courts have not gone so far as to criminalize speech coming from the pulpit, but they have placed restrictions on the statements religious people can make in public. It is only a matter of time before they start dictating what can and cannot be said from the pulpit.
Someone here said that the homosexual “marriage” issue is all about benefits. It is not. If it was, they would be satisfied with civil unions. This is all about tearing down two of the foundations of western society: the family and the church. In doing so, they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. If western civilization collapses, it will not be replaced by an egalitarian society that worships at the altar of sodomy. It will be replaced by a barbaric society such as islam that will put a quick end to notions of equality. And the first to suffer will be the homosexuals and the feminists.